HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-13-1985CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNIM, COMISS40H HINUTES
FEBRUARY 131, ;1985
The regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning commission Was
called to order at 1*0 P.M*
PRESENT-* Chairman Stelqerwald,: Comml slon rs
WireMagnus, tul.berg, Pluf .a and
auba
ABSENT*- Acne
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator,
Sara MoConn
on un ty Development Director
Blair Tr ere
City Engineer Sher c Goldberg
Community.Development Secretary
Grace 11yineman
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commissloaer
pauba to approve the Minutes of January 23, 1965 as
VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg abstained,, MOTION HIT S - JAMARY
carried. 232 1985
PUBLICHETNG$
Chairman Steic erwald' introduced the request by Dirlain Dever- D DEVELOPMENT
op ent, and Mr. Denni. Dirlam, petitioner. He requested REVISED RPUb PRELIM- M—
thatthat oordinator McCo-in _'review the January 11, 1955 Staff INARY DEAN AND PLAT
Report., Chairman ; eiq,- ild asked for questions'roes the
Commission. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the size o
the open space in the northeast : corner; and, arca of
I
the
gree lots which are to be relocated. Coordinator McConn
answered that there t5 a difference of 2110 of an acres and
Mr. Dirlam. stated that the northwest corner would include
1,77 acres in Outlot B, and 1.9 ages in lots.
Chairman Stelgerw ld opened the Public Hearing.
a)mrmls loner Pauba inquired about the landscaping in ttse
open area Mr ; Dirlam stated they were keeping the land-
scaping as before} with basically the same number of plant-
ings with some rearrangement,. Commissioner Pauba inquired
if the Commission would be seeing this landscape plan. Co-
ordinator McConn stated that the landscape ;plan would not be
reviewed by tame ComntssiOn at the final plat stage unless so
directed. Commissioner Pauba stated he had no real, problems
with the landscaping.
Page 35
Planning Commisstoo tllnutes
February 13, 1985
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the item concerning amend- ORKMANCE
meats to the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. He explained that AWMMENTS
there are six draft amendments to he discussed,, screening of
rooftop equipment, trash and r disposal standards dor
the residential zoalno district t elevators- equivalent
yards/ foru'esI hedges., and wails; temporary outdoor promo-
tional b vaI merchandising i ct :viti s, and, residential area
identification signage. Reading of the February 6, 1985
staff report was waived.
Commissioner Wire inquired about -,0.3r panels ;and whether
they would he required to be screened, and hog.. Coordinator
ReConn answered that the language was directed toward
active" me hanical equipment, and not toward passive solar
equipment; it is possible cert -vin types of ;polar e uipaent
might be screened from view, h,,,- ot in a gay to interfere
Nvith sunlight,
Chai.rmaa Steigerwald confirmed this requirement would he for
net -,onstru tion only. Chairman Steiqerwald opened the Pub -
lie Hearing.
Don Jordan,: Trammell: Crow 8300 Norman Center Dr. $
Bloomington, MR.,, stated that Wt. is representing Carlson
Companies, Vantage Company, and Pr4,Alential, Dev lopment Co.
Restated that, trough the amead ent looks benign, he is
concerned that it goes much deeper. Ue stated that his firm
plans carefully by making certainh. t the colon selection
for this equipment will blend pita the building and the
horizt a; Mr. Jordan had pictures to Ahow the Commission. He
stated` that no matter how you would try to meet the require-
ments as stated ,in the draft amendment, it would turn out to
be a "Picket fence" or "dog ous-,11 approach, and would not
be an attractive or aesthetic addition to the building. He
stated ` that each site is different; as an example$, in the
Plymouth f3 jsiness Center} there are four different eleva-
tions which makes t diffi.Aalt to screen all directions*
also, the developer will not know potential tenants and hav-
Ing to screen any additional rooftop equipment could mean
substantial' Improvements to the building, that will add to
the cost, and will be a maintenance °prohlema. Mr. Jordan
st ied that: .0osthetics and visual soreerOnq can be accoka-
pushed by dieting; the paint being a camouflage which will
not '4eAraot from other building features. He stated' that in
regard to noise, this equipment is often insulated when
installed.
Chairm n Stel erwald explained the draft reainance amendment
regarding rreening' was requested by Council because of
impacts on residential neighborhoad& such by commercial and
industrial uses ivith nod Sy and. unser =tined rooftop equipment.
Page 24
Pi.anni.n ('ommissioa Minutes
February 1985
Commissioner Solberg stated his, reason fV' r his secord on
the Motion for approval W"5 that the trade in open space i
a trade of passive* rccrea t)nal area for passive recreation-
al
ec eati. n-
al area; there was no trade of developed area for passive
area; and. 0ere will be as .much open space as Wacs shOl n
originally.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the pond area. Enginecx
Goldbergstated that the drainage mu t be maintaineO on
their property, ;or ._hey Mould need an, easement to pond on
property north of them, they were unabll- ` to acquire this
e:e test
Commissioner Stulberg inquired if the ponding was discussed
with the or.'g in l PUD review. Coordinator McConn Mated
that the same policy is in effect now as when the proposal
was originally r vle e zi, Mr. Harhul a stated that he did not
remember the requirements being brought to their ,Attention.
Engineer Goldberg off, red that p-rhaps Mr. iviar uia had not
dealt with this aspect ofs she .poi.i 0y prOviodS,ly
Colmuissioner Wire commented Leat he concurs with Com ' psi n
er' Plufka, and he prefers the o en areas be more centrally
located. He feels the remotely located area is a problem
topographically and: will: not be convenient to all the
residents.
Commissioner Pldfka stated that chancing the access to the
open space creates a problem making the area accessible to
the residents of they :second phase; that there would be an ,
ad s problem theouth ' t and, the use of the cul-de- access
imposes,' traffic. on those residents.
Roll Call, VOTE on the MOTION to approve the Revised xPUD VOTE -w NOTION FAILS
i"rclim nary Plan and Plat.. Commissioners Pauba and
tulborg, Afire. Commissioners 14agnusj, r1re, Pluf alt Chairman
ei.ger ald May. MOTION fails.
MOTION by ; Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner tol
t4agnus to defer recommendation on this item, with direction CUvw"'I QATION
toL restore a portion 01 the common open space to the central
area of the development, and to look for a better solutior
for access to the common open space for all residents of the
development;.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired of fir. Dirlam If he would pre-
fer to go to the City Coinvtl without Planning ;o mdsslOn
recommendation, or come back to the C nni.ssion with the
changes as recommended# Mr. Dirlam stated pie 'preff rred to
return to the Commission.
ill Call VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carr4 ed. VOTE - MOTION .
Noe
planrlinq Commission Minutes
February 1985
Chairman Stelgerivald introduced the T e onlng , Conditional ST - `DD
Use Permit and Residential planned Unit Deyelopment Prelim- CONSTRUCTION "t
nary Plan and Plat 'o Harstad- `odd Construction Company, OT-NDllJOKA
and asked for review of thq February 49. 1985 staff report. US PERMIT AND RPL
PRMIMINARY PLAN AND
Chairman Steigerwalld, Introduced Mit'. Kennoth Briggs, repre- PLAT (81+100)
senting Harstad-Todd Construction, and fir. David Putnam,
Merila ar,d Associates, Inc,, consultant.
Mr. Briggs discussed the 'initial Concept pian and the revis-
ions made on their plans in response to direotion from the
g lot sues forPlanningCommissionandCityCouncilretardn(
lets on the perimeter of the development; increased lot
width for lots on 3uneau Cane; and, redesign of common open
space, all of which has been accoitpl shed.
Commissioner pluf a asked for a review of the common/open
areas surd Mr., Briggs presented a graphic ANAth this
information.
Chairman St igerwald opened the public Rearing.
Chairman tp;gerwald introduced Martha t la.ahe n, 1 41st
Avenue lorth who passed on making comment at this time.
Leo C.asheen, 14555 41st Avenue North, stated his concern is
tete number of hones: per acre 8 xth.xn this development. ent. He
stated he moved to Plymouth in 3uly and had In ed at many
hones in many areas He was impressed with the planning
b ?nq done in Plymouth. fie does not see that this proposal
fits into the neighborhood. He would like the planning
Commission to keep the lot sizes in proportion to the entire
area»
Chairman Steilerivald inquired about the square foot ge of
Mr. Clasheen`s lot. Mr. Clasheen stated he has. a 30,500
sq. ft. lots and that this development zhou)d maintein
consistency. Cha .rman ('teigerwald explained that during the
preliminary stages of ., ev ew for this development, It was
requested that there be larder .lots on tho periphery of the
development so that most of the larger lots mrill be closest
to the existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Glasheen reiterated that he has not seen this type of
density in, the area:. Chairman Stelgerwald explained that
this proposal is not an unusual development, and that there
are many residential Planned gnat Developments inPlymouth.
Page 4
planning Commission Minutes
eruar
ly
Mr. Briggs stated that they worked to meet the Ordinance
provisions, and that they would be building i homes on
these lots.
Coordinator McConn reviewed the lots sizes for existing lot$
on Juneau Lane, and explained that the area has yet to be
served ivitl sewer service so that large 3 acre lots are
orison
Chairman Stei erwald explained the planning process for this
development that the developer has responded to dlreWon
from the Planning Commission and City Council; and, has done
hAt the City asked to be done. He further explained that
the Planned Unit Development allows a developer, density
bonus points for comMon area and open space developed for
the use of residents within the development.
Mr. Glasheen was concerned about access to County Road 9 and
the added traffic. Chairman 5tei: erwald concurred with the
traffic problems on County Road 9, and explained that the
traffic controls are under the authority of Hennepin
County. He inquired of staff„ as to plans for the
i w=terse r Engineer Coldber stated the Cn} ty' has no
immediate plans for upgrading the intersection of Juneau
Lane. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the classification
of 3uneau Lane; Coordinator McConn confirmed that Juneau
Lane is a minor collector.
Richard Grimsrud, 4385 Kingsv ew Lane, asked to pass comment
at this time.
Lyle 3oyee, 4130 Juneau Lane, stated h :` It the developer
had made many improvements, but that he still has two con -
erns; the 'dangerous access to County Road , and, the lot
sizes. He stated that the lots in the ar- a are 25, to 30l 00
sq. ft., and his lot is 3,,7 acres on uncau Lane. He feels
the requested increase for lot size on Juneau Lane is only a
token change, and there are still: top many small lots with
this redesign. He stated he moved to Plymouth because of
the oo ntr -like atmosphere and Rant .he liar or lot sizes
maintained in this area. Commissioner plufka commented that
if the propertywere developed within R -1A zoning standards,
the minimum lot size would be 18,500 sq. ft., he would he
concerned in requiring OtOOO sq. ft. lots in a PUD.
Larry Knoblachf. 43Z5 Juneau Lane, passed on making any
comments at this O e.
Page 27
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1985
Tom Montgomery 1, 4305 Kingsview lane, ;Mated the development
does not meet the PUD attributes, and ;he can't see how the
Planning Commission could not follow those requirements, He.
requested that the Commission discuss the attributes
cin :-b„ - one$ and explain how this development meets the
or teria, Chairman tei erg ald explained that the
attributes are general guidelines, and there is ' not an
expectation for a development td meet al,l of them. The
expectation for each area as it develops is different. Mr.
Montgomery expressed his concern that this sums.
arbitrary,", and: if all attributes sire not: met, why would
the development be approved.
Commissioner Pauba sated that the City can he better served
with a Planned Unit Development`, where open space and
re root onal amenities are offered to; the residents. fir.
Montgomery id not t-oncur, ,and feelstoo many homes are
proposed In one development. halrmantelgerwal.d requested
Mr. Montqomery review the Ptd attributes.
Coordinator McConn stated that in the R -1A Zoning District
the allowable density is , two units per acre. Commissioner
Plufka stated it was his opinion ths number of dwelling
units would he consideji ably less in the R -1A Zoning District
due to r ight-of-way, easements,; and development
constraints.
Chairman St iger Bald called a 10 minute Recess. RECESS
Chairman Steigerwald resumed the Public Hearing,
Commissioner Praia commented that obviously the statement
made regarding the allowable density of Z units, per 'acre in
the RAA District as times any_development plan would have to
provide streets and utl.l tties Hawver, he, f els
ae ro-.;lit tel y a0l dwelling, unit: would be expected under
zoning. Chairman. Stelgerwald (,mmented that a standard
plat would he wi thou, planned open s!,ace and common area.
Mrs Montgomery stated hls estimate is 185 to 190 units
considering: the amount of un seable land; and, granting
waivers on lot size and lot coverage will make a: crowded
development.
Mr. Triggs dlscur,,-A Ile., "coverage and the addition of decks
and pored mss,} ;;iD,* xi Steigerwald inquired if fir. Briggs
had shared the 'Kingsview Heights development booklet with
neighbors- and, offered the booklet .to Mr. Hontgo:-iiery for
his information and review*
i
page 2
Pl nnin i Commission Minutes
February 'la, 1985
Jim Hart t'1 :icksburq Lane North, stated that in look ng
t the plan he is concerned about the lend he owns. He
inquired about frontage, and how he will be able to access
his land.. He stted It looked to him that he would be los-
Ing the ability to develop alono the roadway.
Coordinator icConn stated that Mr.", would have frontage,,
but it would be reduced. She stated that staff could meet
with Mr., Hart and review how his land could develop.. Mr.
Hart, was concerned float he is losing,the value of his prop-
erty.
r -
er . Engineer.Goldberg stated that Juneau Lane will curve
at a right angle to 46th Avenue North,.and agreed with Co-
ordinator
n-
ordinat r NoConh that this, heeds to be looked at In more
detail? as it is ohvious that total access cannot be taken
from Mr. Hart.
lr. Briggs stated he has no problem with extending the roaa-
way and Increasing, the curve, and would net cut off ` access
o= fir. Hart's property.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the size of fir, Hart's
property, fir. Hart stated he owns approximately
acres. Chairman Stelgerw ld reiterated that.Mr* Hart should
talk with Coordinator McConn and Engineer Goldberg regarding
his, property.
Bob Roscoe, 4260 Kingsvi w Lane, stated that he lives dir-
ectly adjacent to the proposed development and inquired
about the status of the Planned Unit Development. Chairman
St igerwald and Coordinator McConn explained that the Con-
cept Plan has been approved) and the Rezoning, C'onditio.rNal
Use Permit, and Preliminary plan and slat are being con-
sidered tonight. ter, Roscoe stated he would be more comfor-
table If this were acing to be a done ntional plat; and,, he
arrived at a computation for approximately 180 dwelling
units being appropriate for this
development. He suggested
that homes along Kin sview Lane and 43rd Avenue forth have a
setback of 50 ft..
Chairman Stelgerwald,inquired if those who had gassed making
comment wished to speak at this time; they Mated that their
tedquestionshadbeenacdressea. Mr Tom Montgomery commenL
he felt that this development only meets one of the attri-
butes for a PUD
Linda Roscoe, 4260 Kingaview Lane, stated her concern is
with the high density; and, the fact that lymouth's image
is changing with emphasis on high density and :Low income
housing. She is also concerned about the increased traffic,
and the fact there will not be schools and playgrounds in
sufficient numf) r to keep up with high density development.
She does not want the "ruralfeeling" of the neighborhood to
be lost.
Page,
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10 1985
Marian Schmidt, 1152() Park Drive, Rogers, MN, stated they
owned hand in Plym, outh, part of which they k"a e sold. They
still own small piece of property north Glacier Lane,
and inquired if the City P14AS to` ill it in, or if it will
remain a, pond, Chairman Steigerwald stat J the City would
not propose anything for this property'. Mr. Briggs' stated
that it was, their feeling that the land Is unuseable, and
would not accommodate a house. Chairman Steigerwald
inquired I Ms. Schmidt had intended to sell this land with
the property she sold to the east. his. Schmidt stated these
were two separate parcels. Chairman Steiqvrwald stated that
there is no way the City can consider oo,,o)<< , and the parcel
Is landlocked. He inquired if his. _.. has covenants for
access, lis. ichmi'dt answered no, f"It airman tel erwald
stated that perhaps. Mr. Briggs could contact els. Schmidt
regarding this land. car. Briggs stated tie would consider
possible purchase and inclusion of the land and would
discuss this with els. Schmidt.
Chairman tel erwald closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Plufka Inquired ,Lf the Commission would
oonsider the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Plat for PUS} status
first. Chairman tel.ger al.d answered affirmatively.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberq seconded b Commissioner PII°
Pauba to recommend approval of the Residential Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Clan and Mat subject to the co,n-
ditions as stated in the draft Resolution.,
Commis i.oner Plufka stated that the development plan as
revised is a better plan, but he is still concerned'that it
does not meet the PUD attributes. He is also concerned
about the "passive" nature of the open space and inquired if
a more '"active"" use is planned.
f lr. Briggs stated that they Proposed to provide trails,
benches and picric tables, and will bring in more detailed
plans -dor these areas, once they receive input from the City,
because of the public nature of the open -space. Coordinator
NeConn asked for clarif ,cati a on Mr. Briggs' use of :the
word "public", in conjunction with the aped areas for this
development, as they are ody for the use of the residents
in the development. qtr. Brigs clarified that he did not
mean "public" in the sense of City parks, but that it would
be for the residents of this development.
Commissioner Wire stated that the size of this area makes It
a candidate for PUD status, but the plan does not meet the
criterla for a PUD. It appears that it substantial
redesign could be needed to meet those requirements*
flexibility given to a PUD. Commissioner Magnus lnqud;red if
the Commii, cion should defer recommendation for redesign.
pages l
planning Commission Minutes
ebruary 13, 1985
Commissioner Magnus stated his concern with the .layout for
the open sp4Ve1 that there is not; enough useable land
included in the open :space; and, it Is too spread out.
Connissioncr Stulberg stated that he believes the pet honer
hds listened to the direction given hilm by the Commission
and Council, and, has responded to that direction. He stands
by his Motion for approval.
Commissioner Haanus stated his -, concern about buffering and
transition al. na ithe eastern. border. Commissioner Stulberg
comen ed th4Z the same concern could be expressed If there
were lot sizes of 18,500 sq. ft,,,?scuss on enss ed about
futtire development west of Juneau Lane.
Commissioner Pauba concurs with Commissioner Stub=erg that
the petitioner responded to the direction 9111ven, and, the
plan is better than what could he p ;, v id d with a conven-
tional plat.
Commissioner Pl.uf a stated he agrees the petitioner has made
progress) but there are problems with two, of the five cri-
teria and the development ones not meet the spirit of the
PUD attributes.
Roll Call. VOTE. Commissioners Ragnust Wire, pluf a, and VOTE `ION TO
Chat", an Steigerwald Nay. Commissioners 1 tul.berq and Rauba, APPROVIE - MOTION
Aye. 140TION failed. FAILED
MGTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner pl of a NOTION TO DENY
to recommend dental of the Rezoning, Conditional: Use;Permit,
and Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan
and plat for arstad-Todd Construction Company.
Coordinator McConn expl aired that the Planning Commission
had recommended approval for the Concept filar for this
development and, that the Council granted approval with
direction for certain changes to the plan. Changes were
made and have been considered tonight. She noted the
cojimients made regarding the PUD attributes, er,d that the
Motion; to deny must contain the reasons for that. denial..
Commissioner Wire stated his Notion was a Positive statement
for dental; that he was xnitia.tly concerned about tr ns-
ltilon; and, Is _,trot satisfied with lot size and lot lva dth.
He does not believe that the developer has made use of the
flexibility given to a PUD. Commissioner Magnus lnqud;red if
the Commii, cion should defer recommendation for redesign.
Page 31
planning Commisslon Minutes
rebtuary 1 1985
C'oa!,., 1oaer Stulberg stated that the playa approved
c()neop ual, l.y as, a PUD.
4r Briggs to ed that they have responded to the direction
given thein by the Cl *¢ that they havu exoended time and
nog ey to this end, and he does not understand why theCom-
mlosion is now saying it is not a PUD. Chairman Steigerwald
l.nqul.red if they want the item sent forward with the
recommendation for denial. or 1,P they wo0d accept the
recommendation for deferral for redesign. Mr. Briggs_ stated
thf y want to move forward for City Council consideratzoG.:'
rurther discussion eAsued regarding the PUD attributes. Co-
ordinator MeConn; explained that desa,gn direction is approp-
riate, at the preliminary pltvl/plat stage, and gives the
developer the --)pportunity to respond: to that, direction.
Mr. Briggs stated that he is confused about the Commission's
recommendation for approval of tho. PUD at the COAOePt std(le.,,
and now they find it is not a PUD. He stated they would
accept Commission direction for 0-tpreliminary plan and
plat. Chairman Stelgerwald )>onflrm d that Mr., Briggs was
not under the impression this would be an au omatio approval
of the Preliminary Placa and Plat.
Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Stulberg, Pluf at Pa bay and VOTE ON MOTION TO
Chairman Stel erwald Nay. Commissioner,--* Wire and Magnus, MOTION FAILS,
Aye. MOTION Falls*
MOTION by Commissioner Stulbergt seconded by Comm ssion r NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval of the development as a C{lIh 31 T141, USE
Residential. Planned- Unit Development for Harstad-Todd PERMIT
Construction Compafay sub e;,t to the conditions as stated In
the draft Resolution.,
Poll Call. VOTE. 4 Ayes. Commissionors lire and Pluf a VOTE - MOTION C1lRRIE
Nay, MOTION carried
seconded by CommissionerIT1CdayCommisinnertulberglsmaa NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend appy~oval for the Rezoning and RPUD Pre- REZONING ANS RPW
Ibuinary Plan and Plat subject to the conditions as drafted PRELIKKARY PLAN/
I,through 20f adding Condition No. 21 that Juneau lane ,and. FLAT
46th Avenue North address the right of access to the proper-
ty owned by Mr. JIM Hart of 4725 Vitksburg Lane North.
MOTION to AMEND tlu'l 1,t IN MOTION by 'Commissioner Magnus,,
seconded by Commissioner Wire to add Condition No. 22 that
Lot 21. Stock 14t and Lot 11 Block 18 require 50,ft. setbacks
for taa:ss.can ands Conti, Ion doe 3 that the lot size and
width on the east side of 3uneau Lane .be in proportion with
those lots can: the west side o uneau sane, per l -1A
standards.
Page
pianning Commission Minutes
ebruary 1, 1985
Mr. Clasheen inquired about the recommendations and stated
concern that it appears the Planning Commissionssion s de xgn n
the 0 .at. Chail,man "telgerwa .d explained that the Commis-
sion is giving direction to the, developer that includes
their recommendations on redesign, and these recommendations
are forwarded to the City Council. if they concur, that ap-
proval <ai`o s the developer to proceed in preparing anp-
1 cation for the foal Plat stage of the development. He
confirmed that those interested in attending the City Coun-
cil meetingfor .this Item -:an calf the City to confirm the
City Council meeting date, and time.
Further discussion ensued regarding the location of common
open space.
VOTE on the AMENDMENT. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg Nay. VolF_ - AH9DWNT
MOTION carried. MOTION CARRIED
MOTION ,by Commissioner Wlre seconded by Commissioner Pluf a NOTION TO AMU13
to AMEND the MAIN MOTION by addingCondition No. .2.4, recioir-
In those: lots within Block 11 and 12, which abut residences
to the south, to meet the R-1A lot size and lot width
standards.
Mir. Briggs Mated that Lots 1 through 4 exceed the P-1A re-
quirements. so does the Commission want these reduced'?' Com-
missioner Wire stated haat his recommendationendation is that all
these lots meet the R-1A standards.
Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Plufka withdrew his MOTKON FAILS FOR LACK
second of the MOTION to AMEND. The NOTION failed for lack OF SECOND
of second.
MOTIONby Commissioner Pluf a, seconded ; by Comaatissi.oner TiQt T THE
Magnus to AMEND the MAIN M TION by adding Condition No. 24 M MOTI 4
to require the , petitioner to submit a plan outlining the
cases for the common open space, such as whether it will be
passive or active use- type of recreational equipment and
their location, andj that it ,should be reviewed by the
Parks and Recreation' Advisory Board (PRAC) ..
Pall Call T . Ayes. ;€CTlC 1 carried, VOTE - A LMWNT TO
THE MAIN XOTION
MOTION C-A&RIED
Poll. tall VOTE an the 14AIN MOTION as I11ICE AMENDED 5 CITE - MAIN MOTION
Ayes.* Commissioner Wire Nay, MOTTON carried.. AS TWICEAWNDED
IEDMOTIONCARRIED
Commissioner Wire .stated his reason for voting a a Ast the
Motion is that he .,foes not t,,elle to there is adequate transi-
tion shown on this plan.
Chairman 5tez erwald called a 5,minute Recess.. RECESS
Further discussion ensued regarding the recreational
amenities.
ci e
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1985
Chairman Steigerwald Introduced the Amendment to the N4END VNT TO THE
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Pian to THOROWNFARE GUIDE
delete a portion of West Medicine Lake Drive from the Func-- PLAN ELEWNT
ti nal;Classification of, major collector roadway on the
Thoroughfare Guide Plass Map. Reading of the February 41
1 55 sta f + valved :ha,irman Steigerwald opened
the Public Hearing, as there was no one to speak on this
item, the Public Hearing was closed.
NOTION TOAPPROVE
MOTION by Commissioner Wire$ seconded by Commissioner
Stulberg to recommend approval of the Amendment to the
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan as
stated In the Planning Staff Report dated February;, 1955.
VOTE. 6 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE —MOTION C RI
Chairman Stel erwald introduced the next item, and requested VERN REYNOLDS
areview ofme February 41 1985 staff report by, ooruin for Ti TI CO.
i%Conn.RPUD CWT PLAN
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Rod Halvorson, representing
Vern Reynolds Construction Company. Mr. Halvorson explained
the Concept plan, stating that the property consist of rol-
ling terrain and that a large open area is planned for tf e
center of the site. He noted the areas of steep grades.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the diffference In eleva-
tions. fir.: Halvorson explained there is some slope. in :the
rear yards.. Chairman Stenger ald inquired if some of the
steep areas can be flattened and leveled. for. Halvorson
stated that his landscape architect is working on this now.
Chairman Stelgerwald commented that he recommends they re-
duce or flatten steep grades as much as possible to attain
useable space for the residents.
Commissioner Plufka stated he concurs with Chairman Steiger-
wald, and is also concerned about the useability of the
planned open ,space.' He Stated, it appears that the access
would not be good to the centrad open space for residents on
the eastern edge of the property. fir,. Halvorson explained
that this has to do with the grades between t o buildings,
Commissioner Plufka stated there should be a designated area
for residents to acess the common area without having to
walk on driveways, and there should be direct access: to the
pond.
Further discussion ensued regarding the recreational
amenities.
Page 34
Planning Gcmmissl,)n Minutes-
February
inuts"
e ruary 13-,11985
Commissioner Stulberg stated that specific direction should
be given for the recreational. Open space. Commissioner Wire
concurred, and recommended the developer prepare a Usting
of proposed landscaping,, equipment. and amenities for the
Covinission's review.
Mr. Vern Reynolds stated that is working with the land-
scape planner on plans to flatten the area for a playfleld;
trees and shrubs; grills and tables for the picnic area;
and$ terracing will be dont; in this area* He, advised this
Is ; not ;a final plans and a trail pion has not been prepared
as yet. However, the acceis can be changed to address the
commissionsconcerns.
Chairman Stelgerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Jack Gassn r, 5265 Pineview Lane, tepresentint Mr. Jerome
Be ln, inquired about the construction schedule for North-
west Boulevard. EngineerGoldberg responded that the Public
Hearing has been held, and the construction from 55th Avenue
tc Pin view` ,ane is deferred until. 1986. Coordinator HeConn
explained the phasing of the project wAll be consistent with
utility availability. Engineer Goldberg expained that there
are no plans for the road construction for ' that part of the
development outaide the seer district.
Ruth Rdsendahl, 5205 Pintview Lane, stated her questions
were also regarding, road construction, and she is concerned
about traffic on Piqeview Lane. Engineer Goldberg responded
to the phasing of the road con true ori. Ms,. Rcsendahl
st jtcd she is also concerned about sewer avallablity for all
the units rop,,ed. Coordinator NeConn explained that :the
development complit: i with the Staged Growth Plan, and Phase
Is limited to app;oximately 20 acres for development, the
balance of this property can not develop until after 1990.
ehairm n. St i erivald closed tete Public Hea in
MOTION by Commissioner Plug a, seconded by Commissioner NOTION To, APPROVE
Padba to recommend approval of the Residential Planted Unit
Development Concept Flan for Vern Reynolds -Construction
Company subject to the nine conditions o ` the draft Reso-
lution
e o-
ld ion ` with the addition of Condition` No. 10 to require a
detailed plan for the recreational open space with the sub-
mittal of the preliminary plan and plat; and Condition No.
11 to provide access to the common open area frog the
eastern edge of the development to the central open area,
and north/south to the pond.
Roll Gall, VOTE. Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION FEBRUARY 131, 198
APPROVING P L 11` I11ARY PLAT AND VARTANCE FOR ROBERT GERSBACH FOR MEDICINE LAVESHORE
ADDITION ( 84107 )
WHEREAS, Robert Gersbach :has requested approvalof a Preliminary Plat and Variance'
for Mediellne Lakeshore Addition :)r single 'Family residential Iota on 2.08 acres at
540 Wet Medicine Lake drive; arxd,
WH R A j, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public
Heari.nq and recommends approval)
NOW, TH REF ORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVrD BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE`CITY OF ;PLYMOUTH t
NINOESOTA, that it should and hereby does aporove the Preliminary Plat and Variance
for Robert Gersbach for Medicine Lakeshore Addition for 3 singly: family residential
lots located at 2540 West Medicine; Lak 'Drive, subject to the following onditi a s.
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
Removal of all dead or dying trees from the prop r..y at the owner's expense.
Provisions for a 30 -ft. wide trail outlot per Comprehensive Park Plan, ds
verified by the Parks and Engineering Dep rtrrent , with submittal of detailed
plans as to construction of the trail perCity standards.
4. ' Payment of park dedication Foes-Jin-lieli of dt.dication with appropriate credits
In an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs ono ac-
cording to the Dedivation Policy in effect at thy., time of f1iino the Final Plat
with Hennepin Couqty,
Compliance with Policy Resolution No. '79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures in subdivisions, adjacent to, or containing any open stores
eater drainage facility.
No Building Permits: 4shal.l: be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
7.. Approved variances are.
ot 1: a,1 lot width (75 ft. vs 110 'Ft..)
Lot :` a.) Lot width (65 ft. vs 110 ft.)
Lot 3: a.) Lot width (65 ft:. vs 110 ft.)
b..) Lot size (18,141 sq. ft. 'vs 18,300 sq. ft.)
Nc, yard setback variances are granted or implied for any new structures or
auditions.
9. The existing structure on proposed Lot shall be removed prior to filing of the
final plat.
Page.
planninq Commission 14inutes
i ehr ory 13. 19S5
Mr. Jordan stated that the compressor equlpr;en,Z, and cooling
hers'usect in some locations are much different than
standax*d" rooftop units used on- typioal developments such
as theirs.
Chairman tdigerwald stated; that the language still, gives
the developer flexibility in design and mater'i.als fir.
otdan stated that th swordin) "durable materials" connotes
a fence or structure: Chdrmn Stoigerwald stated that he
agrees that: paintinq the equipment may iolve the aesthetic*
concern of Secreening,
Chairman Steigerwald commented that the requirement as
it fted by staff is necessarily. ' vague" so the l anti ~ °i
ca emission can be flexible; in thein recommendations.
Mr4 3ordan. stated that he is uncomfortable with the 1,
in that it seems to defi-'Itoly meati fencing or structur}-' a
Mr Lawrence Mare y,, 2635 Medicine Ridge Rind, Chairman
ft.r the Plymouth Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals,
stated that the wordinq "constructed durable materials
which are" could be deleted, leaping only "Screening hall
bo aesthetically compatible
Director Tremere statod be has no ub eotlon'with this direc-
tion; howev r, in some oases constructive screening is need-
ed, In the case where "noise't is a problem additional sere--
ening is needed to diminish the sounds from equipment,, and
there should be a uniform standard in the Ordinance if it is
to apply in all oases of similar classes. Pewrhaps differ- I
ent classes or situations should he distinguished.
bwai.ssioner Wire stated he understands the developer's don-
ern regardinq additional cost, but #tie City needs to ad-
dress the areas where commerciallindustrial adjoins iresiden-
ti;al. neighborhoods. He said he was not concerned with
Industrial. park loeeti.ons wh h $gad ria abutm t or inter-
facing with non -industrial uses.
Mr. Carlos Hodge, Prudential Development Company. stated
the City concern is valid in the case of noise; however;
aesthetics is . separate issue and the oonoern is not $o
valid.. He atated here should he flexibility in the Ordin-
ance, based: on demonstratel, need for screening.
ommi.s i.onor Wire inquired about industry stand 4 ds on noise,
bevels. fir. 3ordan stated that the standard rooftop equi -
meiit,, &, ending vapor the site of the tenant area, can be the
same size as home units. Commissioner Wire ocwen-d that
the condenser& and chillers generate'certain deolb l t= and
there should be some ray to fudge if screening should be
required.
igen 37
Manning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1965
Director Tremere stated that this may be hard to deteriallne
and probable cannot be , tid ed until the equi^114 is Instal-
led* If the equipment is shown with the Site purr 01ica-
t1on, it could' e evaluated "up front's. Commi'ssi,oner Wire
inquired if the City could refer to National standards as is
dune with luting.
Mr. Ceorge Mel en$ Honeywell Inc, stated they have dealt
with hdise levels, and if there is no other noise to screen
out the sounds from the equipment (such as ambient traffic
n ise)t it could impact adjacent properties. However, the
sounds produced by these units often cannot be picked up on
a noise meter. Chairman Steigerwald stated that frequency
and pitch could be of concern. Commissioner Wire stated his
concern regardinq noise; that is heard by those beyond the
property lines of the facility producing the noise.,Direc-
tor Tremere stated that the Ordinancence specifi.call.y spears of
glare and vibration, not noise, regarding boundaires. equ-
1 tion of noise is by reference to State regulations. ow—
ever, the City Council is concerned that if there is a prob-
lem from r<oofttp equipment that would produce disturbing
sound ' in residential neighborhoods, the developer must ad-
dress this problem, gust as is done with glare from site
Cheirman Steicterwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO D
pltzf a to _defer action on the draft Ordinance language on A RECOMHE-MATION
endment No. ° p, screening of rooftop equipment, with direc- ON AMENDMENT NO.. 1
than for further consideration by staff as follows: COMmi $-
si.oner Wire stated he would life information on estate stan-
dards (such as from the Pollution Control Agency), regarding
noise levels. Chairman Stei erwald stated that the develop-
er shoe whether the rooftop equipment can blend with ` ;:he
building by the use of paint. Commissioner Plufka concur-
red, and stated that when a building' is well planned, the
requirement for a special structure for screening would be a
last resort, but the assurance that this planning has been
done is an appropriate cons Ideration for site plan reviews.
It was agreed that the locational factor, such as indus-
triallcommerciai abutting residential: should be cited, Com-
mi.ssiGner Wire stated that painti.nq and maintaining the
equipment arid/or screening should be addressed.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if ' the manufacturers address
this issue in 'their design `of the equipment. fir. Hodge
stated that certain utn is arc, energy efficient, built for
quiet operation, and present ,a low aesthetic profile.
Chairman Stei.gerwald requested staff to coordinate with
those developer representatives who were present, and for
them to communzcatd with other Development Council members
when the additional information and revised draft are done..
P1,lan ing Commission Minutes
February 13, 1985
Rall Call VOTE. 6 Ayes. NOTION carried,. VOTE -TO DEFER
TION CARR .
Chairman Steigerwald -introduced Amendment No. Z relating to
trash and refuse disposalstandards for Residence Districts,
and opened the Pub"lis Hearing, Aa there was no one present
to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION by Commissioner tire, seconded by Chairman MOTION TO .APPPOV
telgerwal.d' to recommend approval of Ame dsnent No. NO.
relating to trash and refuse disposal standards in the
Residence Districts.
Roll Call Nota. 6 Ayes.. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CANTED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Amendment No. 3 relating t
elevators, and opened the Public Hearing. As there vas no
one present to speak on ,this item, the Public- Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, .seconded by Commi3sioner TION TO APPROVE
tulberg to recommend approval of Amendment No. 3 requiring AWNDMENT NO. 3
elevators in multi -residential buildings.
Roll Call. Vote* 6 Ayes. NOTION carried.. V`. TF- - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Amendment No, 4 relating to
Equivalent Yards ences, Hedges, and Walls and opened the
Public Hearing.
tr. Larry Maro s y, Board of Zoning, described the requests
being considered by the Hoard for those lots that are not
addressed by the Ordinance, ie., corner lots where dual
access is allowed. He said the Hoard ,and Commlsslon had
also d scu!:`;ed building setbacks In corner scat cases, and he
noted this amendment Moes not cover that.
Director Tremere concurred, and he discusscd the neer
definition of, "Equivalent Yard", and stated that the matter
of yard dimensions would be discussec by the Commission w th
the issue of building coverage.
Commissioner Plu°ka stated that regarding corner lot and
through lot dual access, a requirement cannot be created for
the myriad of possibilities that could o our, and that is
why there is a Hoard of ,Zoning, i.e., these are relatively
unique circumstances.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Pub1io Hearing.
Page 39,
Planning Commission t4inutes
February 13, 1985
OTl0N tulborc , seconded baa Commissioner TIO'4 APPROVE
lu a to approve Amendment No. 4 regarding aquiverntAIME G.
i ds Fences, hedges, and walls.
OAyes. ` oarr'l ed VOT` . , '
Chairman iteiqerwald iodu . Amendment No. 5, relating to
temporary outdoor promotional and merchandising aet:ivities,
and opened the Public Hearing. As there was no one to speak
on this item, the Public Hearing w&.-, closed
MOTION , by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commiss 1,1, iter NOTION TO APPROVE
t*ulberg to; recommend tapproval of Amendment No rel}.ting AHENOWNT N0.
to temporary outdoor promotional and merchandising
activities.
OTE. 6 .dye 3. MO110N carried.. VOTE, _ NOTION CARRIED
Chairman Stelgerwald'introduced Amendment No. 6 relating to
residential area Identification signs, providing the minimum
setback for, these signs found at the entrances to residen-
tial developments, and o0ened the Public faring* As there
was no one to weak on this Item, the Public., Hearing was
closed.
MOITION, by Commissioner Paijbaj seconded by Commissioner NOT3ON TO APPROVE
Plufka to recommend approval of Amendment No. 6 relatinq to AW-WHENT NO.,
residential area Identification signs.
VOTE: 6 Ayes. MOTION carried VOTE - 140TTON CAmjED
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the Honeywell, Inc* MatUr 1 ; LLQ INC.
Flag Amendment,._. Site Plan and Variance for an approximate AMENOWNT TO TE
61000 sq, ft. addition, with request for a varianoe, to allow, K.AN, SITE PLAN, AND
a 50 ft* setback to the zoning lire between the B -i and FRD VARIANCE A-151)
Districts; reading of the January 31, 1985 staff.report was
waived
MOTION by Commissioner Wire,,seconded by Commissioner Magnus NOTION TO APPROVE
to reoomend 4p roval forHoneywell,- Inc., easter PlanAmend-
ment, Site _Flan and Variance subject to the conditions as
stated In the draft Resolution.
The 0ommission discussed the zoning lines and their concern
f Honeywell should divest themselves of any land. They
e;onfir ted the lnt nt is to maintain this land as a buffer to
adjacent properties* Chairman Steigerivald inquired about
Pl 0
mnnip Cit missy n Minutes
February 13 ,t 19i5
future planning beyond the addit`lon of the 'clean room. Mr.
Mellen -,-tkated it is difficilt to address future plans
yard state-of-the-art 'n logic _ changes
so raps
oVOTEcarried. yON y
4MOTIONOT :
Chairman i e,IqA introd"t ed thy. application by Carlson CARLSON PROPERTIES
Properties. of the February 1, 19,1 Staff o*.t FINAL PLA" AND
wasYiven VARA 80
Chairman gerwa introduced r. le Kennedy,
representing Carlson,Properties« lir. Kennedy stated they do
not c-tgree with the ctaff report where it states, under
ptaragraph 51, that a shared driveway should be utilized#
Engineer Goldberq stated that it is common practice to
eliminate the number of drives on a collector street.
Chairman Stelqerwald asked Mr. Kennedy the reason th.ey do
not agree with this re :cmmendataon. Mr. Kennedy stated that
it will create problems for the owners of the lotss pith the
shared drive; he feels a shared drive is not nece$sarY
here. Coordinator McGoon relteratedi. that the City wants to
encourage shared drives alone minor collector roadways
Commissioner Wire inquired if it wouldn't be easier to have
the shared drive:, rather than removing It. tir. Kennod:y
stated they are not concerned about taking out the drive,
they feel It will make marketing she property muga easier.
MOTION y Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Chairman OTXV TO APPROVE
tei erwald to recommend approval of anal, Mat for Carlson
Center Fifth Addition sut)ject to the conditions In the draft
llesclution, and deletion of Item No, -B of the e'ngineer's
Memorandum.
OTE. 6 ayes. MOTION carried.. VOTMOTION CARRIED
S SS- OLU BUSINESS -
hairman ei erwald introduced the item, readinq of theChairman ROBEPT CERS13ACI1
February 11 1985 staff report was waived. PRELLMINARY PLAT AND
VARIANCES 01+107)
Chairman Steigerwald introduced fir, Robert Cersbach, who
explained 'the revisions made in response to the Commission
direction at the meeting held January 9. 1985.
TIM. Commission discussed the use, of existing dwellings and
retaininc trees on the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FFBRUARY 15, 1955
APPROVING,l IDEM `l 1. N NIT EV L"' NEN P11FLl llllARy LAN/PLAT AND ONDITIONAL
USE lel t llT ` .AR TAD-TODD CONSTRUCTION Y" FOR VIFW LIGHT PU X5-1)
WHEREAS,, Harstad-Todd construction Company has requested approvdltor a Residential
bi nned Unit Development r 1, mina y Plan k:, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit
for 1kingsview heights for creation of 22-4 single family residential lots l.00at d
northwest of County Road 9 and Juneau Lane.' and northeastof 44th Avenue and Juneau
Lane; and,
DDHER AS the planning Conjii,s ion has reviewed the request. a.t a duly called Public
Hedring and recommends approval.;
ViV THER FOR t BE IT .R Y RESOLVED THE ITYli C-L OF THE TTY OF PLYMOUT141-
MINNESOTAt that it should and hereby does approve the Residential Planned krait
Development Preltiminary, laa/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for l a stad-Todd
Construction Compare= for Kin s,vie ° Heights located northwest f County Road 9 and
Juneau Lane and northeast of 44th -Avenue and Juneau Lane, subject to the follow ng.
oundi,tionsZ
1. Compll Ance with the City ,Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property, at the owner°s expense.
3. Maximum density shall be `. units per acre ; for the lana T. or above the
established high eater elevation per the adopted City Stomalator Drainage Playa
as verified by ` the City Engineer. Two density bonus pointy are assigned for
size of project', and one point is assigned for affirmative design. The final
number of units approved is 224.
d Building Permits shall h issued oa t P . Contract has good awarded for sewer
and water.
5. Payment of, Park dedication fees-in-lieu of d'-,a iotl in aceordpnce with the
Dedication Poli y in effect at the Time of fili.no the 'nal Peat.
6. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System,
Cotl1pliance with polity Resolution No. 5_ g regarding in r-,.., floor levation
for new structures in suhdi isiofts a(i cont toy or co.atainiwi any open 'storm
water drainage aolllty-
8. Rezoning shall be finalized a i th filing of the Final Plat.
Development shall 1)f: consistent with the Turtle Lake Area Environmental
Assessment{
10, o Building Permits shall be issued until the Final_ Plat is filed and recorded
with. Hennepin County.
Page two
RPUD PreliminaryPlan/Plat
ll. Yard setbacks shall be 30 fit. front yard,,, except for those lots cllonq COU11ty
Road 9 which shall be 50 ft, front Yard- 10 ft. side yard and 42 -*5 ft, rear yard.
V, Access shall be limited to internal public reads and restricted from: County,
Road 9 and Fernbrook Lane.
13. Transitional screening and b rming shall be provided along: County Road 9 and
F'ernbrook Lane with final plans to be provided on the final grading plan.
14. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents, covenants
aro restrictions as approved by theCity Attorney, shall be filed with the Final
Plat.
15. Sign construction d tails shall be provided with the Final. Plan/Plat applica-
tion.
pplica-
tion. There shall be a property covenant for monument sign maintenance. over the
entire subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney; such covenants to be filed
prior to issuance of a Sign permit. Appropriate easements for the location o
the si liis on the property shall be filed prior to issuance of a Sign Permit.
16. Construction details of development plans for the comolon open, area shall be pro-
vided on the final grading plan.
7. All existing structures, except those' on Lot 4, Block ? and Lot 11 Black 10
shall be removed with the initial development.
18. Last coverage by !'.rdcturds shall be 20 percent) except that 22, lots may have up
to 34percent coverage by structures,
19. A, model unit may be `constructed on Lot' 14, block 8 in accordance with Section 71
Subdivision F° of the Zoning >Ordinance. The Final plan/plat application shall
identify location and construction plans for access and parking associated to
the use of a model unit.
i. Any existing wells shall he filled and capper; in accordance with ;Mate Health
Department regulations*
21. Developmentopment Flans shall address the right of access to the property owned b
Mr. Jim Hart from Juneau lane and 46th Avenue North
22* A requirement for 50 ft. setbacks for, Lot Z. Block 14, and Lot 11 Block 18 for
transition
Lot size and lot width on the east side of Juneau Lane shall be in proportion
with those lots on the West side of ldnea4- Lane, per the F -1A zoning standards.
Submission of a plan outlining the uses for the common open 'space such as, pas-
sive or active use; type of recreational eotlipmon= and their `Location- and, that
this plan shall be reviewed by alio Parks and Recreation. Advisory Board (FRAC).
RECOfTMENDATIONS FOR` 'E6nU RY 13, 1985
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PEAK FOR REYNOLDS, CONSTRUCTION,
UPN (S l2
WHEREAS, Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval. of a Residential lant
ned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 5Z guadrimi.nium units and:
0 multi -family units on approximately 76.8 acres located east of 1-494 and north of
the Sob Eine Railroad Tracks in Sections and 10; and,
WHEREAS, the Kanning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public
Informational, Hearing and has recommended a provall
OWt THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY TUE CITY COUNCIL OF TAE CITY UE PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that
LYM UT
IiNESUT,at it should and `hereby flees approve the Residential Planned Unit ilevel
opment Concept Plan for R--ynolds Construction Company for a development to be known
as Bass Lake Terraces consisting of 57 guadrimini.um units and 380 multi -fes; ily units
on; approximately 78.LS acres located edst of I-494 and north of the Soo' Line Railroad
Tracks, subject to the following conditions;
I.. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
Staging of the development shall be In accordance with utility availability a
approved by the City Engineer, and the Staged Growth Plan.
Maximum density shall be 6. units per acre for the land at or above the estab-
lished high wikter elevation ger the adopted City Storm Water Drainage .Phan as
verified by the City Engineer. The final number of units shall' be determined
with the Prel i.mi.nary Plan and Plat review.
The preliminary plat/plan application shall include explanation of requested
yard setbacks, lot coverage, removal of existing structures, and screening/buf-
J q along I-494 and Northwest Boulevard
5. Draft restrictive covenants for the private open areas shall: be submitted with
prel ii. i nary plat/plan application..
4. The preliminary plat/plan application shall address the development and use of
the private open areas.
7* No private; drive access shall be permitted to Northwest Boulevard*, all private,
drives shall, be provided` by internal public streets.
S The preliminary plan/plat application shah not be submitted until the proposed
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Amendment is finalized.
Dark dedication requirements shall be cash fees -in -lieu of land dedication.
10. Submission of a detailed plan for the recreational open space with the Prelim-
inary Plan and Flat.
11 rrovi.sion for access to the common open area from the eastern edge of the devel
opmegt to the central open, area, and north/south trail to the pond.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 13t 1985
F 0,5 ING MASTER LAN At IU1 " T, SITE PLAU,, AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONSO HONEYWELL,
INC. A-151)'
WHEREAS, Honeywell, Inc. has requested approval of a easter Plan Amendment, Site,
Plan, and Variance for an approximate 6yOOG ft. addition to their facility located a
001 State Highway ; and,
WHEREAS, N planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommends approval;
GW, THEREIrOREy BE IT dFRE Y RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY or PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTAt that. it should and hereby does approve the request for Honeywell,, Inc.
for a Haster Plan Amendments Site Plan, and Variance for an approximate 6,000 f*
addition their facility located at 12001 State Highway 55, subject to the
folijowinq conditions
1. . Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum
Isubmission of required - financial guarantee and Site Pc- formance Agreement for
completkon of site improvements.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approv-
als per Ordinance provisions,, and i accordance vilth the Master Plan staff dated
3anuar v 11 .
Approved Variances Include*- a 50 ft. setback to the zoning line between -1 and
FRU Districts, rather than the required 75 ft. setback considering tete property
z intended to remain undeveloped and will serve as a buffer to already
developed areas.
Submittal of a complete landscape plan prior to issuance of Building Permute..
RECOMIENDATIONS FOR' ' i Y 1 11985
SErTING CONDITIONS TO BE MrT PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATEDTO FIRAL PLAN` FOR CARLSON
ER FIFTH ADDITION FOR CARLSON PROPERTIES (80039)
WHEREAS, ttie City Council ttas approved the, Final Plat and Variances` or Carlson Center
Fifth Addition as requested by Carlson P opertiesl ;
NOTYt T E CP , BE lT E Elay RESOLVED C COUNCIL C CITE Cl" P YHO T ,
MINNESOTA, that It should and hereby does approve the following to be met, prior t
recording of, and related to >aid plat;
14 Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandumt with deletion of ItemNo. of the
Engineer's Memorandum.
The Ordinance rezininq the Property shall be published upon e i4en e that the
Final Plate has been filed and eerd u' ev th Hennepin County,
3. Payment of pare dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in a"ordance with City
Policy in effect at the time of filling I - e Final Plat.
No yard setback variances are granit d orImplied; and shall be in accordance with
the R -1A standards.
Approved Variances arez lot areas of 18,x29 sq. ft. for Lot I and Ut847, sq ft
for Lot 3, rather than 18,500 sq,. ft. and lot widths of 302 ft. for Lm, I and 104
ft. for Lot I rather than 110 ft.
of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the CityA. Submittal _clu y
Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
7. No Building Persalts to be Issued until the Final Play: is filed and recorded with
Hennepin County.